Certainly.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yet again you just brush off my concerns as "conspiracy" that's 3 times an own goal now!

Pfizer were not required to do testing on transmissions that's fine no problem with that...then why did so called "experts" base their advice on this? Becuase maybe they were paid too? Same as your YouTube doctors then that you seem to not like.

There were a many number of experts who had an opinion but were silenced and or cancelled becuase it did not fit the required agenda.

According to you it seems then an experts opinion only matters if it fits a certain agenda.

My concerns were legitimate. Anything that affects my well-being or health is a legitimate concern. And at this time my concerns have been proven to be valid and well founded.

Governments job to inform and encourage? By having parties behind closed doors? Having affairs with their assistants? Breaching their own guidelines? And sending the public an enormous amount of misinformation.

An experts opinion only matters if it fits an agenda these days. However wrong or controversial it may seem.

How many times do I need to say this? You cannot "brush off" something that doesn't exist. Your concerns are imaginary. You just choose to disregard the reassurances and explanations that exist because you prefer a diet of conspiracy theories to fact.

I have already, patiently and at length, explained that science is not a fixed thing. As it learns the messages change. But before it accepts the validity of any updated position thorough double-checking is done.

No expert gave incorrect advice about transmission! They gave the best advice available at the time and modified it when new circumstances prevailed.

Any experts advice only matters if they are an expert whose work has been peer reviewed and validated as accurate. Those pushing a political or pseudoscience agenda won't pass the test.

Your concerns are not legitimate. They are entirely imaginary. That they are real to you doesn't change that. Lots of people imagine things. You are now imagining that there is something which proves that. All that exists are charlatans misrepresenting statistics for their own commercial benefit. You are, regrettably, not alone in being duped.

I don't defend the stupidity of the Johnson period, but it has no bearing at all on this. This is a simple issue between the best advice available based on a scientific consensus of the world's experts and that of a few others, often with political motivations or dubious qualifications, providing alternative opinions to the gullible, probably for personal gain.

You carry on believing the latter if you want, but don't try to convince me your concerns are legitimate.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I don't abandon people who speak the truth.

You can stay with the altruistic Soros/Gates/pharma funded.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Firstly...you have absolutely no right telling someone whether their concerns are legitimate or not. I certainly do not tell you your concerns about covid are not legitimate as you clearly think covid is serious. I respect your concerns about it.

My concerns are legitimate. It's my body after all and not yours. What I do with my body does not affect anyone else other than me. I am concerned about what I put in my body and what effects that has on me.

As for "expert" advice it's only really valid if it fits an agenda. Peered reviewed papers are the exact same...whatever way the wind is blowing and where the money flows...and personal gain like you said.

Any group of doctors with the same agenda cam "peer" review a study.

Yes the science does change. Science should always be challenged. But what happened at the start was anyone who challenges the science with legitimate questions were silenced and cancelled.

I have never denied that you don't think they are legitimate. Obviously, you do, but as they aren't real, you are worrying about things unnecessarily. These are not legitimate concerns. They have all been answered and there is no need for anyone to take them seriously. The failures here are that not enough has been done to reassure the obsessively sceptical, like it appears you are, alongside not enough being done to restrict the flow of disinformation bombarding you.

Seed funding scientific research in a capitalistic society works. The profit motive drives innovation and discovery. You either believe in capitalism, or you don't. I do. Peer review is an essential part of the other side of the coin, which is to check and make sure that what is released is real and thoroughly tested. It is the journal intending to publish the study that appoints the 2 sets of independent peer reviewers. They pay them. Not the original researchers. As the journals themselves have high standards and reputations to protect there is no reason to doubt the integrity of this process. It is, after all, only the first stage. Before release, several regulatory hurdles must be overcome.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.